Posted on 12/31/2005 1:32:58 AM PST by neverdem
Happy New Year!
Groan!
Run for your lives - the retards have taken over the thread.
RAmen!
Condensation reactions. Look it up in any intro organic text book.
Not only are the atoms natural, so are the bonds between them. The molecular arrangements are also determined strictly by the laws of nature. A C-C bond found in nature is identical to a C-C bond syntheized in the lab. The mere existence of a specific chemical indicates it is natural. The path to it's formation is irrelevant. For example, PCB's and dioxin were thought to be strictly synthetic until it was discovered that they formed in lightning strikes. The point is that chemistry is all natural for everything. Even in the lab, where the reactions are apparently controlled, the chemicals are simply the products of naturally occurring processess that will happen on their own. Reactions aren't made to happen by chemists. They happen through a set of chemical principles that function everywhere. Chemists simply know what the behavior of these materials are and let them do their own things. Chemicals do what they want to do and form what they want to form. Chemists simply know how these chemicals behave and use that to help create a tergeted chemical. What you call an unnatural chemical is still a part of nature and can form on its own under the proper circumstances. Even cooking your food produces thousands of by-product chemicals, almost all of which would be considered 'unnatural' by the organic food people. Acrylamide, a very toxic chemical, is one. Chemist don't engineer a chemical by snapping it together like Lego blocks.
What I'm rambling about is that all matter is natural simply because all matter exists in nature.
So you are dishonestly conflating the fact that humans design microbes ("Hey! That is ID!")with the pseudo-scientific hypothesis of ID ("An unknown agent with unknown motivations and powers designed life on earth") too. Glad we've sorted that out. At least you'll be taking issue with the numbskulls who claim that if humans can't do intelligent design of life in the laboratory that disproves evolution. It is just amusing to see how the creationist argument is reversing as science progresses from the old argument, "The failure of scientists to design life disproves evolution" to "The (hypothetical) success of scientists in designing life would support alternative theories to evolution". Don't you get it? Whether or not human scientists are capable of "intelligently designing" life in laboratories has zip, zilch, nada, zero, nothing to do with whether or not the conjecture that life on earth was originally intelligently designed.
No difference.
Have you ever overinflated a bicycle tire (about 60 psi)?
Commercial tanks are pressurized to 2500-3000 psi. Should the valve crack off -- that suckers going to move.
This is NASA. They have made a SWAG.
LOL. You seem to be saying that anything following the words "theory of" is pretty much guess work.
Talk to me, then, about this theory of intelligent design.
Anything that can happen in reality can be said to be "natural" in some sense or another. But when that strict sense is used, the word has no meaning, because something that means everything ends up meaning nothing. The term, as most people understand it, implies a lack of intelligent involvement in a particular process.
I'll talk to you about a "theory of intelligent design" just as soon as you point out where i ever claimed ID is a theory.
I have never claimed that it is a theory. Both ID/creation are evolution are "scientific models". They are guesses about which people on both sides present evidence both for their position and against the other.
Since neither of them are testable/repeatable, neither can truly be considered a theory.
To say that evolution is a theory is an attempt to lend credibility to the subject that simply is not supported by the evidence. Even evolutionists admit that evolution (we're talking macro-evoloution and not micro0evolution) is not a fact.
I find it humorous that evolutionists compare evolution with gravity, when it is quite simple to observe the effects of gravity. No one has observed the effects of macro-evolution. if they had, their Nobel Prize awaits.
What you're doing is conflating scientific-vs-unscientific with correct-vs-incorrect. The fact that humans engage in ID does not provide evidence for the correctness of the ID theory, and no one's claiming that it does. That's your strawman.
That is wrong. The word natural in the sense that scientists use it is exclusive of the supernatural. ie the mystical involvement of incomprehensible entities with incomprehensible powers. Hardly a meaningless distinction.
The term, as most people understand it, implies a lack of intelligent involvement in a particular process.
But "most people" are not scientists.
And "supernatural" is another one of your strawmen. Find any published definition of ID theory by ID advocates that says a "supernatural" power is responsible for the origin of life. It's simply not a scientific term at all.
200
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.